Originally Posted by Ted

Hahahaha Chief, isn't that what makes us men? The biblical urge to go forth and spawn our seeds... Clinton should have used that quote to his defence, that would have gotten the Democrats lots of extra constituents from Bible Belt !

Federal Judges have this inherent dislike for perjury. And frankly, they scare the h**l out of me because they can really strike fire from your butt any time they feel like it. I also think they leave their sense of humor in the room where they put on their robes, that's enough to discourage me from lying to them about anything regardless of what it might cost me personally.

Originally Posted by Missileer

Federal Judges have this inherent dislike for perjury. And frankly, they scare the h**l out of me because they can really strike fire from your butt any time they feel like it. I also think they leave their sense of humor in the room where they put on their robes, that's enough to discourage me from lying to them about anything regardless of what it might cost me personally.

ME TOO.

However, that is NOT what we have been discussing. The Republicans went after Clinton like stink on shiite for lying about sex ... but they sit on their behinds when the President is a Republican who violates our laws every time he takes a breath. Wiretapping our phone system without a legal warrant (probable cause required) is against the law and SCOTUS has so ruled EVERYTIME one of these cases has come before them. Keep in mind that there is/was an out for him - FISA would have rubber stamped a warrant with the slightest probable cause even after the fact ... so far GW has refused to even use this approach to make the wiretaps legal.

According to our Constitution, if the President knowingly disobeys our laws, he can be impeached and removed form office for "crimes and misdemeanors". GW has a reputation for obeying ONLY those laws he agrees with - he acts as though he is above the law.

Where is the outrage from the Republicans NOW? As far as I am concerned, they are a bunch of hypocrites. What is good for the goose should also be good for the gander. Republican (or) Democrat, the law should be applied equally.

There will be Republicans that will excuse GW's actions by saying that Congress was appraised of these operations and authorised them ... IF SO ... these actions would have been deemed illegal by SCOTUS also. The ONLY way a law can be abridged (set aside), is for Congress to do so after a legitimate Declaration of War and by a vote of the House and Senate. When was there a Declaration of War, and just when was there a vote to set aside the wiretapping law ... THERE WASN'T A DECLARATION OF WAR AND THERE WASN'T A VOTE.

But Chief, talk about thinking they are above the law....If the Republicans were gunning for President Clinton, he supplied them all the ammunition they needed.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-go...tonimpeach.htm

The impeachment of President Bill Clinton arose from a series of events following the filing of a lawsuit on May 6, 1994, by Paula Corbin Jones in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In her complaint initiating the suit, Ms. Jones alleged violations of her federal civil rights in 1991 by President Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas and she was an Arkansas state employee. According to the allegations, Governor Clinton invited Ms. Jones to his hotel room where he made a crude sexual advance that she rejected.

On January 17, President Clinton was deposed in the Jones lawsuit. He denied having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky under a definition provided to him in writing by her lawyers, and also said that he could not recall whether he was ever alone with her.

On August 17, the President testified for over four hours before Starr's grand jury on closed-circuit television from the White House. In his testimony, he admitted the Lewinsky relationship, but denied that he perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition because he did not interpret the conduct with Ms. Lewinsky as constituting sexual relations. On the same evening, he appeared on national television and admitted that he had an "inappropriate relationship" with Lewinsky and had misled the American people about it.

After debate, the House approved two of the Articles alleging that the President had provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and that he had obstructed justice through an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case. After the House vote, President Clinton appeared before the media at the White House, saying in part:

As for an impeachable offense such as "high crimes and misdemeaners", President Bush has not committed an impeachable offense in the War On Terror.


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html

"The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

"Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate."

Big M
It's the semantics that get used every time that this issue is discussed that ALWAYS torques my jaws.

When you boil everything down to it's simplest form ... Clinton was guilty of lying about having consensual sex with someone NOT his wife ... something that every married man would do if he was caught.

When you boil everything down to it's simplest form where GW Bush is concerned ... he IS guilty of ordering warrant-less wiretaps (he admits it) ... a violation of law, and he did this knowing that it IS against the law.

Keeping the discussion on the lowest ladder of discussion, just where was Clinton's lie about sex MORE detrimental to your rights and to my rights. That is the REAL victim to an illegal wiretap. GW's personal decision that he can disobey ANY law that he doesn't agree with concerns me a h*ll of a lot more than ANY lie about a sexual encounter ... even if the person were to lie about it to SCOTUS. Especially when the person disobeying our laws is the President of the United States. That's downright scary and challenges the very Constitution we live by and that he swore to uphold.

Originally Posted by Missileer

Federal Judges have this inherent dislike for perjury. And frankly, they scare the h**l out of me because they can really strike fire from your butt any time they feel like it. I also think they leave their sense of humor in the room where they put on their robes, that's enough to discourage me from lying to them about anything regardless of what it might cost me personally.

Whats the power of a Federal judge in the US?

phoenix80. Don't try to be a Mod. Use the report post option. = (When Did I try to be a Mod?)

Originally Posted by phoenix80

Whats the power of a Federal judge in the US?

Legititmately, they could sign a 'bench' warrant for your arrest for perjury and contempt of court and then put you into jail or prison for a very long time. That's what power they have.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

Big M
It's the semantics that get used every time that this issue is discussed that ALWAYS torques my jaws.

Semantics is where it all lays. I can say one thing to you and mean it one way and you can twist those words to mean something different. So when you say semantics irritates you, you use the same ploy to make your point as do others. You can not just break something down to it's simplest form and have it be agreeable to everyone. But if you use enough words to make it agreeable to everyone then you are giving them more room to twist your words. You can not have it both ways.

On another note: If the authorizing authority was fully aware of the crimes then don't you think they are guilty as well for allowing it to continue? Sort of like an accessory to the crime? If you do nothing to hinder or help a crime but you are aware of it then tha makes you an accessory from my understanding of the law. If that is the case I would say just about every single Federal official is guilty of one thing or another that could get them jail time.

FIRE THEM ALL!!!

Originally Posted by phoenix80

Whats the power of a Federal judge in the US?

Well, the Judicial Branch is the third and separate, and probably most powerful, branch of our Government.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

Semantics is where it all lays. I can say one thing to you and mean it one way and you can twist those words to mean something different. So when you say semantics irritates you, you use the same ploy to make your point as do others. You can not just break something down to it's simplest form and have it be agreeable to everyone. But if you use enough words to make it agreeable to everyone then you are giving them more room to twist your words. You can not have it both ways.

On another note: If the authorizing authority was fully aware of the crimes then don't you think they are guilty as well for allowing it to continue? Sort of like an accessory to the crime? If you do nothing to hinder or help a crime but you are aware of it then tha makes you an accessory from my understanding of the law. If that is the case I would say just about every single Federal official is guilty of one thing or another that could get them jail time.

FIRE THEM ALL!!!

I have a tendency to agree with your thought that we should FIRE THEM ALL - after all, they are aiding and abetting GW and his administration in the breaking of the law, and in violation of the Constitution.

How supposedly smart people can NOT see this is beyond me. When the law says that you can NOT take a certain action WITHOUT a warrant ... that it is breaking the law in it's simplest application ... how somebody can then turn around, and try to defend the person who broke the law is beyond me. (This is where semantics are at their strongest and most perverted form of the English language ... when someone tries to defend the indefensible).

I GUESS THE TIMES - THEY ARE A CHANGING. and not for the best.

There's a possibilty that all these "executive privileges" are around since 7 out of the 9 justices were appointed by presidents from bush's own party over the decades, including the chief justice. Perhaps they're just interpreting the law a different way, i cannot tell what goes through these king judges' minds over federal law.